Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the calculation inputs and outputs, but does not mention edge cases, error behavior, or any side effects. For a simple calculator, this is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and required inputs, and the second sentence provides a useful pointer to related tools. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (implied by the return format in the description), the description provides sufficient context. It covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and a reference to related tools. Minor omission: no mention of measurement unit constraints or validation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema lacks descriptions. The description mentions 'underbust and bust measurements (cm) and system' but does not explain each parameter in detail (e.g., what 'underbust' means). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description could add more value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool calculates bra size in FR, US, or UK systems from underbust and bust measurements (cm), and specifies the return format. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'calculate_bra_size_convert' by focusing on calculation rather than conversion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly mentions the input measurements and systems, and directs users to 'list_bundles' for related calculators. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use advice, but the context is clear enough for a straightforward calculation tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.